Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming

[Jeremy Bicha <jbicha ubuntu com>]

On 20 August 2012 05:14, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
>>
>> 1. GNOMEbuntu
>> 2. Ubuntu GNOME Edition
>> 3. GNObuntu
>>
>> Ryan has already registered http://gnomebuntu.org/ so I'm leaning
>> towards the first name if that's acceptable.
>
> From how I understand our trademark guidelines, you can't use them to
> make compounds names or logos. So 1. and 3. would be out.

Well I think #3 may not infringe GNOME's trademark either as it only
shares 3 letters with the GNOME trademark.

> https://live.gnome.org/Foundation/LicensingGuidelines
>
> If you were to specifically request for one of 1. or 3. to be approved
> as an authorised use, we would probably want to see explanations as to
> why other names could not be used.

The difficulty is that we want a name that's simple and clearly
represents that it is Ubuntu with GNOME. I believe that's impossible
to do if we can't use the word "GNOME".

On 20 August 2012 05:26, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:
> I pretty much lack the background on this, if the following accurate:
> - Not a Canonical idea (as in corporate decision)
>   I really like having a GNOME edition; this could end up being the
>   closest match to GNOME ever. But I want to give credit where credit is
>   due, and therefore need to know whom to credit.

Yes, this project is community-ran. Once it gets approved as an
official flavor, Canonical will provide the standard infrastructure
support it gives to other flavors like Kubuntu or Xubuntu, but
Canonical does not control the development direction of these
alternative Ubuntu releases.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors

Seb Bacher did say last December that "it would be really cool" if a
GNOME Shell derivative ISO was created. He also helped get the topic
on the schedule at the last Ubuntu Developer Summit. But basically,
the project only exists because community volunteers (and possibly
some Canonical employees on their free time) are making it happen.

On 20 August 2012 06:38, Andreas Nilsson <lists andreasn se> wrote:
> Just to make sure, would 2 be acceptable with respect to the Ubuntu
> trademark usage?

I believe any of the three names would be acceptable with the Ubuntu
trademark people as there is a lot of precedent for the naming
conventions but I haven't confirmed this yet.

Jeremy